The Steve Miller Band and Metaphysics

“Time…..keeps on slipping (slipping) (slipping)….into the future…….”

One moment occurs…then another…then another, and yet another.   The apple on the table exists through all four of these moments…unchanging except for the fact that with each new moment, the apple gains the property of having existed through another moment.  The apple at moment 4 is different than the apple at moment 3, if for no other reason than it has passed through moment 3 and maintains itself at moment 4.

We look at the apple on the table, and see all of this happen in an instant.  In fact, only philosophers or theologians would reflect on such a simple truth at all.

God manifests the apple at moment one.  He manifests the apple at moment 2 with all the same properties as the apple at moment 1, only with the added property that apple 2 has survived moment 1 and exists at moment 2.  He manifests apple 3 during moment three, with all the same properties of the first two, with the added property of it having survived moment 2!  And so on and on forever goes creation…like one long flip-book.

Paul confronts the humanist philosophers in Athens and tells them a simple metaphysical truth:  “In Him we live and move and have our being.”

There is no moment…no happening, no event that takes place outside the will of the one who ordains and maintains all events.  If you say otherwise…as you must to maintain any notion of autonomy…then you are claiming that God almighty does NOT ordain every moment.  Something else out there shares the task.  Maybe chance?  Maybe chaos?  Maybe some other, stronger God?  Who knows?

Arminian theologians seldom contemplate metaphysical issues, and I implore you, dear reader, not to make the same mistake.

Harry G. Frankfurt’s Observations on the Paradox of the Stone

As a Christian apologist, from time to time I’ll encounter the Paradox of the Stone.

It is intended to demonstrate the impossibility of an omnipotent being and can be logically stated thus:

1. Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question.)

3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question.)

Conclusion:  God is not omnipotent.

This question sometimes catches younger Christians by surprise and sends them running to their pastor or parents for relief.  They may often be met with pat answers that fail to satisfy them and eventually fall away from the faith.  This is unfortunately the result of a lack of theological education on basic levels in the contemporary church.

While this question has been addressed in very sophisticated ways by many people…the orthodox Christian solution to it is not really complicated and can be taught to Christian high-schoolers.

I will not be presenting a Christian answer to this particular “paradox” in this blog.  Sorry.  If you’re interested, ask me in an email, and I’ll talk with you about it.

While reading through Baruch Brody’s book “Philosophy of Religion: An analytical approach” I came across an essay by secular epistemologist Harry G. Frankfurt.  (I did a review of his book “On Truth” awhile back:  http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/book-review-harry-frankfurts-on-truth/ )  Frankfurt makes some very interesting comments on the omnipotence debate.

As it has evolved, the debate has siderailed on a few issues that Mr. Frankfurt seeks to avoid.  (He cites George Mavrodes’ attempt to solve the problem by alluding to certain self-evident truths about the nature of God.)  Mr. Frankfurt provides us with an analysis of the Paradox in the Stone that avoides the mistakes made by Mavrodes.

In the end…this argument is meant to demonstrate the irrationality of an omnipotent being.  Frankfurt writes:

“Suppose, then, that God’s omnipotence enables Him to do even what is logically impossible and that He actually creates a stone too heavyfor Him to lift.  The critic of the notion of divine omnipotence is quite mistaken if he thinks that this supposition plays into his hands.  What the critic wishes to claim, of course, is that when God has created a stone which He cannot lift He is then faced with a task beyond His ability and is therefore seen to be limited in power.  But this claim is not justified.”

Why is this claim not justifed?  It’s really quite simple…

“For why should God not be able to perform the task in question?  To be sure, it is a task – the task of lifting a stone which even He cannot lift – whose description is self-contradictory.  But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory – that of creating the problematic stone in the first place – why should He not be supposed capable of performing another – that of lifting the stone?  Afterall, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one?

If an omnipotent being can contradict Himself by creating something that He cannot lift…then why can’t He contradict Himself again, and lift it?

This is a fatal flaw in the argument…and it’s a so simple that it requires a good “head-slap” for not realizing it sooner.  Frankfurt concludes:

“If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle.” - H. G. Frankfurt.  The Logic of Omnipotence

Observations from a Sitting Duck

“Duck…Duck…Duck…”

The tension mounted with every word! Brandon, (with an evil grin) strolled around the circle of children patting each on the head as he passed by. “Duck…Duck…Duck…” He was a master of suspense! The power was in his tiny hands! For a brief moment, little Brandon had the power to change the nature of his classmates, and ohh how he reveled in it! Who would he choose?

Just when we couldnt’ take it anymore…a fierce declaration poured from his lips and echoed across the school-yard…GOOSE!!! Immediantly Summer’s inner nature changed…(according to the rules of the game!) She felt compelled to capture her tormentor…to re-tag him lest she be forced to take his place!

No longer a sitting duck, her entire position in the game had changed! Through no choice of her own she was a new player…with a new destiny and new motivations…yet she was still the same blonde headed little Summer. She was still responsible for playing the game.

Brandon quickly slid into Summer’s old spot, leaving Summer as the outsider…tasked with choosing the next goose. As she began her mantra, I pondered the nature of the game. Suppose the rules allowed us to simply choose not to become a Goose? Or suppose we decided on a whim to act the part of the Goose, and the rules would allow for it? How could there be a game at all then?

Brandon leaned over and whispered in my ear. “She LIKES youuuuu” (drawing out the “you” to fully accentuate the shame…) “Summer couldn’t like ME!” I thought…she always made me the goose for goodness sakes! And, as Brandon and I predicted…Summer tapped me on the head and cried “Goose!”

Now was my chance! I could buck the system! Ruin the game! Throw off the sovereignty of the rules that laid behind the entire system…make the whole of objective truth obsolete….but then I realized how beautiful of a thing it was to be chosen…my nature had been changed. I ran!

Warning: Arbitrary Use of Induction!

(I’m a new kid over at the CARM forums.  Frankly, I find the format to be a little chaotic and hard to follow, so I’m not sure how long I’ll stay there.  However, for now, I decided to respond to a post by a guy named Simple.  I’m afriad the subject matter is anything but!)

SIMPLE SAYS:  To my fellow presuppostionilists, in love of coarse I like van till, bahnson etc.

What I do not like is the urban legand apogetic scheme that claims that this system is somehow more logically consistnat within itself than other systems. This claim is rampant and bogus.
I am challanging a presuper to prove me wrong.

I will lay out the basic ideas in the smallest frame possible to aviod obfuscation.

Presuppositionist worldview:

1. induction/logic/reasoning must be accounted for
2. God, as an eternal eternal constant unchanging mind upholding logic and induction

Possible atheist world view (for sake of arguement atheist sees need to “justifiy” induction and logic, though it has not been shown he must) No need to open that can, anyway:

1. induction/logic/reaoning must be accounted for
2. they are eternal unchanging constants

Now demonstrate how atheist view is internally inconsistant within itself or less logical WITHOUT special pleading, thanks.

SHOTGUN REPLIES:

Mr. Simple,

I’ve been reading your posts since I joined CARM, and I see a common misunderstanding, though I’ll leave any particular criticism of your statements to the specific thread you posted them in.

Given the small number of posts to this discussion, I figured here would be a good place to begin rectifying certain misconceptions. Consider your caricature of the “presup” position: 

1. induction/logic/reasoning must be accounted for
2. God, as an eternal eternal constant unchanging mind upholding logic and induction

I’m from NC, and “pick” a “banjer” so please forgive me for describing our disagreement as a “metaphysical breakdown” (yeeee haaaw!)  Number 2, while seemingly adequate, will, upon second thought, fail to articulate many necessary aspects of God’s nature. 

You see, it’s not just that God, “upholds” induction, or makes logic possible…it needs to be said as well that man’s entire existence is dependent on a covenant with God.  This is vitally important to our debate here. 

Consider Scott Oliphint’s observations on the issue: 

We can say unequivocally, therefore, that by virtue of man’s being created in the image of God, by virtue of man’s being a covenant creature every human being on the face of the earth since creation has an ineradicable knowledge of God – a knowledge that is given through the things that were made, including, of course, everything except God himself.  In order for man to have this ineradicable knowledge, he must know things created, for it is through those things that the revelation comes.  So, in knowing a particular thing, man knows God who reveals himself in and through that thing (including man himself).  Thus, man knows God if and when he knows anything else. (See Oliphint’s “Covenantal Apologetic”)

Love him, or hate him, R.J. Rushdoony also makes some statements that help clarify our situation: 

Nature (to the Christian) is a collective name for an uncollectivized reality, and by uncollectivized it is meant that “nature” has no unity in and of itself that makes it a unified order. To assert that such a unity exists in and as “Nature” is to assert a hierarchical principal concerning the universe and its spheres. (The Myth of Nature.)

We can see, just from the brief explanation above, that the Christian (or presuper in our case) does not simply allude to God in some sort of “God of the Gaps” type argument, but rather, our entire metaphysical and epistemological view depends on God sustaining nature in a uniform way. 

This is not so for the Atheist. 

The Atheist (the materialistic naturalist) must presuppose a reality that is necessarily in constant flux.  They cannot explain motion, time, or particular objects in any other way.  Thus, when they try to propose a timeless abstract concept, it poses a fundamental tension in their worldview, thus invalidating it due to inconsistency.  

They can either say “all is timeless” as the monists do, “all is one”; or they can say “all is constant motion” like the popular atheists do “all is material.”  The twain cannot meet.

Another Train Robbery!

I’ve been considering writing a blog that will show how the terms unique to a Presuppositional apology are being hijacked by others in the Christian world and used for nefarious purposes.  I’m specifically thinking of the terms: Presupposition, and Worldview.   I’d like to highlight a bunch of well known Christian leaders who use these terms in innappropriate ways (that Van Til would never have approved of).  But, this blog will not be it.  In this blog, I’m responding to Ms. Cathy who uses and abuses the term “presupposition.”  You can see the original discussion here: http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=285

Well meaning Christians have donned red bandannas, climbed onto their horses, and robbed at gunpoint that great Van Tillian steam engine, emptying the safe of all catchphrases…

They robbed the train of its terms, and then turned them over to their boss, Mr. Semi Pelagian, to corrupt as he sees fit!

To recover the stolen goods, Ms. Cathy, take my hand and let’s stroll down memory lane.

There is a black lab I know. He LOVES playing fetch. When a ball was thrown into our swimming pool, he would enthusiastically dive in after it! For a brief moment, he would be completely submerged! Let’s freeze this moment and examine it closer.

Held in our memories should be the frozen shot of a black lab, grinning for all he’s worth, completely submerged in the swimming pool, surrounded by wide eyed children.

I would consider our present human condition to be in much the same state as that black lab. God, of course, can be compared to the water, while all the particulars of creation (everything from angels on clouds picking banjos to babies spitting up mysterious substances onto their victims) can be compared to the black lab. They (the particulars of creation) are at all times, completely surrounded by, and supported by, the water…or, for the analogy to work…God.

In such a metaphysical scheme, to speak of something “standing on its own” is to speak of something that is external to the water. This is the point where the sheriff will confront the train robbers in an all out gun battle that would make Doc Holiday proud!The lab does not float on his own Ms. Cathy, nor do facts stand on their own, apart from interpretation. Like the lab, man is surrounded by, and supported by God. All of our empirical observations are first interpreted by God, and then re-interpreted by man.

Only by systematically critiquing a person’s system on its own basis, and seeing what philosophical preconditions that person holds as self evident or “granted” can we then truly claim to be critiquing it presuppositionally. We do not hold their presuppositions up in one hand, and neutral “facts” up in the other, and compare the two to see if they match. Rather, we see if their presuppositions (as they state them) are consistent with themselves and have sufficient warrant. (Greg Bahnsen has pounded the concept into my head. As presuppositionalist, we are looking for arbitrariness, and inconsistency!)

This is my task with Hugh Ross, (and all progressive, long age, or otherwise unbiblical Creation systems.) They necessarily presuppose a different metaphysical scheme than the one taught by the Bible. This leads to all sorts of error in their interpretation of “facts.” These systems are also fraught with arbitrariness and inconsistency. I aim to demonstrate it.

In doing so, perhaps the vision of Charles Hodge will come all the closer to actualizing:

The final conflict in history will be between Atheism (in all of its forms) and Calvinism (or as Shotgun likes to say, “Christianity.) All the other systems will be crushed as the ice between two great bergs.

It’s a TULIP Kind of World…(View, That Is…)

It’s a TULIP Kind of World…(view, that is…)

Or: “A Brief Attempt to Explain the Philosophical Necessity of the Doctrinal Distinctives of a Calvinistic System as Summarized by the TULIP Acronym.”

It would be wise of me to begin this essay by briefly highlighting my understanding of the universe. It will be generally agreed that I am a “Calvinist” and so the system I present will be one formed on the basis of Christianity as expounded on by Calvin. I admit that I have no formal education, nor have I read as much as I would like to on this subject, so please forgive me if what follows seems a bit presumptuous. With God’s blessing, my understanding will continue to grow and my metaphysical view will continue to evolve. However, I feel that circumstances in my life demand a brief attempt to explain myself, and so this will be a statement of my position as it currently stands.

If I were to draw a circle, and call that circle “God” it wouldn’t be sufficient. You see, the circle has shape. It has physical dimensions, and that means it has restrictions. To see the circle means that there are areas on the board where the circle does not exist. This cannot be the case when talking about God. God is infinite, He has no “shape” in that respect.

To adequately portray God via a drawing (if your conscience would allow such a thing) we would have to expand the circle until it covers the entire board. In fact, the circle would disappear all together, leaving nothing but the blank board. God has revealed Himself to man as just such an infinite being. He has no ontological “shape” since He is infinite.

There is nowhere that God does not exist. He is everywhere. In fact, if we were to speak of a “universe” it would be God Himself. One single being, existing eternally, fully satisfied in fellowship with Himself.

Now, God also Has revealed Himself as being all knowing. God does not think as men do, since God already has all of His thoughts. There are no new thoughts for God. He knows Himself, as well as all things, intimately and directly. He also knows (and loves) many concepts in His own mind, concepts like men and women, presidents and beggars, cops and robbers, etc. In His ultimate wisdom and glory, He decided to give life to His abstract thoughts so that we (humans) might ultimately glorify Him, and enjoy Him forever.

To do this God had to create man “out of nothing.” Creation is not a “part” of God. We are not “made out of” pieces of God. Rather, we were created by the sheer will of God, into nothing.

Using the chalk board illustration, all of creation would now be inside of that circle. For the sake of the illustration, we could continue to think of the circle as representing God, even though it ultimately fails to truly represent Him. So, inside this really big circle, we now have various particular things. There is now a distinction in the universe.

Where before, all that existed was God, now there exists something else as well. We have God, and we have creation…(this includes all the particular objects God chose to create.) These particular objects are now inside the circle. (Keep in mind that there is no “outside’ of the circle.)

God is completely sovereign over all that takes place among all of these particular objects He has created. Indeed, everything that exists, only exists by His good graces, and He maintains their existence from one moment to the next.

God has wisely chosen to bless certain particulars in His creation with rational thought and the ability to think His thoughts after Him. Certain particulars of creation, like plants or rocks, do not have the privilege to form thoughts. Those of us that do form thoughts, are conduits of the thoughts God wishes us to form.

Thus, the way rational creatures know, or form thoughts at all, is completely dependent on the sovereignty of God.

With this view in mind, what happens when someone claims that man is not “predestined?” (The P in the TULIP?)

No Christian wishes to claim that God is not completely sovereign, although there are many Christians who despise the idea that man is not autonomous (or self governing.) There are various ways that these men try to reconcile God’s sovereignty with their desire to claim complete freedom of their own will. While I’ll not get into the particulars of these various systems, I will submit that each attempt ultimately destroys the Christian God.

To return to the chalk board once more, by claiming that there is an area over which God is not in complete control, is to draw a tiny circle outside the big (God) circle. When we do this, we can now draw an even bigger circle around both. God and man are now two particulars living in an even bigger universe. This dethrones God, and makes Him at best, just the biggest and most powerful particular in the universe.

Thus, the P in the TULIP is absolutely necessary for a Christian worldview.

What of the I? This again ties into our observations about P. Is God’s grace irresistible? Can man decide not to respond to the grace of God? To say yes, is to say that God can be defied by His creation, which again, would dethrone God. We would need to draw a smaller (man) circle outside of the original (God) circle, and then draw an even bigger circle around both. (Keep in mind however, that it is obviously possible for God to decree that a man will decline a gospel invitation. That is consistent with the system. He would still be a particular object acting out the sovereign decree of the Creator.)

What about limited atonement? The L?

Here to, God is completely sovereign, and has decreed that some will have their sins atoned for, and some will not. To say otherwise, is to dethrone God. This is quite a different topic from the legal question surrounding atonement. Is the offer legally open to all? Is it only legally open to some? Such matters do not really play into the question of God’s sovereignty at this stage. The point is, that the L in the TULIP is a necessary doctrine that cannot be denied without making the Christian God impossible.

What of the U? Unconditional Election?

To claim that man is able to perform some work that will cause God to save Him, is again, to dethrone God. In keeping with the chalk board illustration, we would have to draw a little (man) circle, outside of the (God) circle, and then draw a larger (universe) circle around them both. Then we would have to claim that man, acting autonomously (on his own) performed some task that God, (a larger, more powerful particular in the universe) recognizes, and decides to reward. That line of thought seems blasphemous.

To recognize God as completely sovereign, it is necessary to realize that all events (including salvation) happen at His discretion. To say otherwise, is to posit a completely different metaphysical philosophy where God is only the most powerful particular in an even larger universe…a universe containing all things along side of God.

I saved the T, or “Total Depravity” for last, since its philosophical necessity deserves an entire essay to itself.

I am currently reading Thomas Boston’s “The Four-Fold State of Man” and I hope to clarify my thinking on the necessity of Total Depravity while reading this book. It is not an easy topic, and I’ll save it for later so as not to do it a disservice. 

 

A Serious Question About Satan

Someone asked me a question once.  “Why in the world would a demon want to possess someone?”

After applying my very educated, very sophisticated, and VERY sarcastic mind to the matter…I realized that I couldn’t come up with a good answer.

Over time, I forgot about the question.  It wasn’t until I read Gary North’s book, “Victim’s Rights” that I started thinking about it again.

Gary North talks about the temporary (or common) grace of God. Certainly Satan falls under this grace?

(Some of you folks out there that are boned up on eschatology could probably be more accurate in speculating about this than I am.)

If Satan has not been judged already, (remember the demons plea not to be judged before the appointed time…) then he is currently waiting for judgement. Perhaps he is like humans to a degree. Satan and Demons, while having a better understanding of God, certainly do not have comprehensive knowledge (since God is infinite, and they are finite.)

Therefore, perhaps he is striving in vain conceit for something. (Some worldly treasure perhaps?) Maybe Satan wants to take this world from God in a physical sense, by spreading tyranny and in such a way…become the “god of this world” ultimately setting himself in Gods rightful place?

(This is shear speculation on my part…)

Maybe Angels and Demons are more like us than I had first thought? Maybe they can’t tell who is an angel, and who is a fallen spirit except through the acts of the individual spirit? Then, the “believing” angels act out their duties according to the objective moral will of God…while demons act out their duties according to (what they see as) their own autonomous natures?

I found a three part lecture by Vern Poythress on Angels and Demons that seems to suggest that causation in this life is more complex than we could imagine, with Angels and Demons participating in the causal events in this world.

I’m just trying to figure some of this stuff out. I know it may sound a bit sensational, but please, bare with me.

The Greatest Description of Proper Apologetics Ever!

I was reading a debate today between Douglas Jones, and two very sophisticated atheists, (one being Michael Martin.)

Here is a short biography for Jones:

Douglas Jones, an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is the editor of Antithesis and a Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Idaho and Lewis-Clark State College.

Here is a link to the debate:

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/

Here is the short introduction that Dr. Jones gives.  He adequately and concisely gives a description of a proper Christian apology.

Biblical Christianity, properly defined in terms of classical Protestantism, offers a radical philosophical critique of non-Christian thought. This Christian critique is radical in the sense that it challenges the very core of non-Christian pretensions and demonstrates that non-Christian thought, whether atheistic, agnostic, or religious, ultimately destroys rationality, science, ethics, and every other aspect of human experience.

Moreover, since a properly Biblical critique ought to attack the heart of non-Christian thinking, it may not assume the very standards it demonstrates as futile (a lá Aquinas, Swinburne, etc.) or capitulate to relativism or fideism (a lá Plantinga; Kierkegaard, etc.) or subserviently argue that the Christian worldview is merely “probable” (a lá Clark, Montgomery, Geisler, Moreland, etc.). A properly Biblical critique will not only demonstrate the utter futility of non-Christian thought, it will positively demonstrate that the Christian view of reality is intellectually inescapable. As Cornelius Van Til has argued, “Christianity can be shown to be, not `just as good as’ or even `better than’ the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience.”

Restoration Not Revolution

Restoration Not Revolution!

 

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. – James 1:27

 

The groans of pain and suffering must have threatened to carry David Lipscomb into the blackest depths of despair.  In June of 1873, when men of more practical sensibilities had fled Nashville Tennessee, David stayed. 

 

He stayed, despite the onslaught of a terrible cholera epidemic.

 

He stayed, because unlike those who fled for their lives, he took his religion seriously. 

 

He stayed, because unlike those who would claim sovereignty for themselves, he understood that God, and God alone holds the keys to life and death. 

 

Men around him were suffering.  On June 20^th, at least 72 people died.  It became known as Black Friday.  When the epidemic was finally over, more than a thousand people had died, about one out of every forty people living in Nashville. (1)

 

David Lipscomb is truly a shining light in the history of the Restoration Movement.  Near the end of the epidemic, he wrote the following:

 

“Every individual, white or black, that dies from neglect and want of proper food and nursing is a reproach to the professors of the Christian religion in the vicinity of Nashville.”

 

He wrote a short time later:

 

“The pledge that we solemnly make in our profession of faith in Christ and of our baptism into him, is that we strive to reproduce his life before the world in our own lives.”

 

Oh that we would remember David Lipscomb’s words today.

 

We are to remember them every time we pray.  When we pray, we are to hasten the day that God’s will is done on Earth just as it is in Heaven!

This means that the church on Earth is more than just a gateway to the “world beyond.”  We are meant to bring about positive change in all of life—to mold our environment into the shape of Jesus.

 

No doubt the Christian men fleeing Nashville Tennessee had their own best interests in mind.  To keep themselves from dying, they took the necessary measures.  They sought to meet the oncoming sickness with human power, and human will—in this case, retreat. 

 

Such is the way of all humanistic thought.  The humanist mind tends towards thoughts of power, domination—ultimately, “revolution.”

 

This term, “revolution” has taken on ominous tones in today’s society.  Revolution is the meeting of your foe head on to overthrow the stronghold he has over the environment, or to illicit change via force (force like retreat in the case of the Nashville Christians.)

 

Is this what the Restoration Movement is about?  Are we to bring change on society through humanistic means of force? 

 

David Lipscomb again writes:

 

“The mission of the kingdom of God is to break into pieces and consume all Earthly kingdoms, take their place, fill the whole earth, and stand forever.”

 

He writes in his book “Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny and the Christian’s Relation to It” that Christ came to rescue the world from civil governments (instituted by man through force of revolution) and to restore this world to its primitive and pristine allegiance to God.

 

A time will come, he says, when Christ will put down all rule and all authority and all power.  Through Christ, God’s kingdom shall break in pieces and consume all the kingdoms of Earthly origin.” (2)

 

The goal of the church then should not be one of revolution, but rather one of restoration.  Through revival and evangelism, one heart at a time will be turned to the Lord, and through a bottom up, grass roots movement, our surrounding environment will slowly be restored to the realm it was meant to be.

 

This is quite the opposite of what many in today’s Restoration Movement are attempting to accomplish.

 

They have bought into the ideologies of the humanist.  They seek to wage a revolution over society through force of arms, (or in this case, force of pragmatic and pre-packaged church growth programs.)

 

These well meaning brothers see the onslaught of sickness caused by the society of Satan, and seek to meet the challenge physically through means of marketing techniques and other humanistic means.  (Means like small groups, coffee houses, and “bring your pet to church” days.)

 

They neglect the poor in society, while at the same time letting in the humanistic pragmatism of the surrounding market-driven world.  This religion is not the pure and faultless system that James describes in the first chapter of his letter.

 

We need restoration, not revolution. 

 

We need to seek to restore the world that God intended for His saints instead of trying to bring it in through force of arms via revolutionary, humanistic methods.

 

Let us look after the widows and orphans.  Let us live consistent Christian lives by caring for the poor and the needy. 

 

Leave the coffee and rock bands to the society of Satan.

 

(1)  C. Leonard Allen. “Distant Voices:  Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church.” Page 92

 

(2)  Quoted in “Distant Voices” Chapter 12.

Apologetics as Warfare?

Dear reader, indulge me in a little speculation:

 

A man approaches you with the intent of forcefully stealing your wallet. 

 

You not only disagree with the man himself, you disagree with his entire worldview.  In a no-doubt convoluted series of reasons, this man has concluded that it is perfectly ok to steal your wallet. 

 

Here we are presented with two opposing worldviews (yours, and the thief’s).  While the two ideas are different in a conceptual “abstract” sense, they will have immediate results in the “real” world.

 

You will fight off the thief in order to keep him from getting your wallet!

 

Did you just engage in apologetics? 

 

If you say “no” then you have to draw the line at speculative “non-physical” actions and admit that only abstract thought processes can be rightly called “apologetics.”

 

But, that doesn’t make sense does it?  Apologetics by nature involve an interaction with the world via some physical means…usually by voice, or by letter.  But is this a necessary distinction?  Do we just arbitrarily deny the title “apologetics” to other actions? 

 

Now, we can obviously agree that certain forms of apologetics at certain times are unethical.  But then, if we want to claim that violence is a valid tool of apologetic methodology, we only need to appeal to a proper system of ethics.

 

My point here is…perhaps apologetics is more than just writing and speaking, but can also be a physical clash of ideas on the battlefield?

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated!